SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 271(1) of the Act to record satisfaction and impose penalty and hence, the PCIT/CIT has power to direct the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction while exercising revisionary powers u/s 263

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, no grounds pertaining to section 80IA was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. 17. The Tribunal vide order dt. 28.12.2012 had disposed of various appeals filed by the assessee for various assessment years. The Tribunal had granted the relief to the assessee by remanding back the matter to the file of Assessing

MADHUCON PROJECTS LTD, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, no grounds pertaining to section 80IA was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. 17. The Tribunal vide order dt. 28.12.2012 had disposed of various appeals filed by the assessee for various assessment years. The Tribunal had granted the relief to the assessee by remanding back the matter to the file of Assessing

MADHUCON PROJECTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

263 of the Income Tax Act 1961, no grounds pertaining to section 80IA was raised by the assessee before the Tribunal. 17. The Tribunal vide order dt. 28.12.2012 had disposed of various appeals filed by the assessee for various assessment years. The Tribunal had granted the relief to the assessee by remanding back the matter to the file of Assessing

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, three appeals i

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

RAVI RISHI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), HYDERABAD

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject\nmatter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court or Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of\nassessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising\nfrom the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided\nas per outcome of these proceedings

SOMIREDDY SUDHAKAR REDDY,IBRAHIMPATNAM vs. ITO., WARD-9(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1505/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Somireddy Sudhakar The Income Tax Officer, Reddy, Ibrahimpatnam Vs. Ward-9(1), Pin -501 506. R R Dist. Hyderabad. Pan Bghps3108R (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Mohd. Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Abhinav Pittal, Sr. Ar

263 or assessment order or other orders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275, presupposes the existence of assessment proceedings/revision proceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order or revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these proceedings

KESIREDDY RAVINDER REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD

263 or assessment order or other\norders are subject matter of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court\nor Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus, it is clear that section 275,\npresupposes the existence of assessment proceedings/revision\nproceedings or appeal proceedings arising from the assessment order\nor revision order and the limitation is provided as per outcome of these\nproceedings

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED,NELLOR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO ,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) , NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

PACC CONTAINER LINE PTE LIMITED ,SINGAPORE REP BY ITS INDIAN AGENT M/S J M BAXI & CO,NELLORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), NELLORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

u/s 172 of the Act either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. He had drawn our attention to section 246 of the I.T. Act which provides as under : “Appealable orders. 246. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders of an Assessing Officer (other than

VISHNU PRIYA FOODS ,NIZAMABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NIZAMABAD

In the result the order of Pr

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhassessment Year: 2015-16 M/S Vishnu Priya Foods Ito, Ward-2 C/O P Murali & Co., C.As Vs. Nizamabad 6-3-655/2/3, Somajiguda Hyderabad 500 082 Pan: Aakfv6377M (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. P. Muralimohan Rao Asessee By: Revenue By: Smt. Anjala Sahu, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 01/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 04/09/2020 Order Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This Is Assessee’S Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The A.Y. 2015-15 Against The Order Of The Pr.Cit-5 Hyderabad Dated 19.03.2019 Passed U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Firm, Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 17.10.2015 Admitting Total Income Of Rs.1,81,287/-. During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Act, The Ao On Verification Of Audit Report Found That The Asesssee Has Claimed Vat Payment Of

section 263 of the Act. 9. The Ld. Pr.CIT has grossly erred in not appreciating the legal aspect that initiation of penalty proceedings is the mandatory action and levying of such penalty is discretionary basing on the facts and satisfaction of the AO. 10. The Ld. Pr. CIT ought to have appreciated that levy / imposition of penalty u/s 271

PROTON POSITIVE HEALTH CARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE -16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.812/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Proton Positive Health Vs. Assistant Commissioner Care India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Hyderabad. Circle-16(2), Pan: Aafcp6862K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 03/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (For Short, “Cit(A)”) Dated 07/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 28/06/2019 For Ay 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Passed By The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us:

U/s 271(1). 5. The Assessing Officer is not justified in levy of penalty without recording any proper satisfaction in the Assessment order ie., whether for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income and hence invalid. 6. The Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars with regard to addition under Section 56(2)(viib

ITO, WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. SCI IT SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2011-12 Income-Tax Officer, Sci It Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward – 3(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan – Aaace 7864 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

263. 4. Thereafter, the AO initiated penalty proceeds u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and accordingly, levied penalty of Rs. 84,40,060/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 6. Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the notice

SYNFOSYS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD., HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony(Through Virtual Hearing) Assessment Year:2011-12 Synfosys Business Vs. Income Tax Officer, Solutions Ltd., Ward-3(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aafcs 3590 K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri A. Srinivas Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mitra, Dr Date Of Hearing: 14/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

penalty of Rs. 32,99,764/- in the hands of the assessee invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is a private limited company engaged in software services, filed his return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 30/09/2011 claiming exemption U/s